political implications of abbas kiarostami’s...

Intl. J. Humanities (2014) Vol. 21 (1): (143-164)

143

Political Implications of Abbas Kiarostami’s Cinema

Seyedmohsen Alavipour1

Received: 5/7/2012 Accepted: 17/3/2014

Abstract

Political Cinema is defined as a "political event", a "biography", or

"process". Such a definition is, however, not inclusive enough to cover

the films which focus on the normative aspects of politics without

necessarily narrating a special political issue. By reviewing Abbas

Kiarostami’s films, this article attempts to revise the definition of

political cinema and propose the notion of normative political cinema.

Keywords: Normative Thought; Political Cinema; Friendship;

Resistance; Metaphysics of Violence.

1. Assistant Professor at Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS), Tehran, [email protected]

Political Implications of Abbas Kiarostami’s Cinema Intl. J. Humanities (2014) Vol. 21(1)

144

Introduction

Political cinema is supposed to deal

with or narrate the whole or part of a

politician’s life. Therefore, films that

are categorized under the genre of

political cinema are the ones which

revolve around secret political

relations, collusion that culminate in a

particular event, or even the rise and

fall of a politician. From this

perspective films such as: A Man for

All Seasons (1966), JFK (1991),

Nixon (1995), All the President’s Men

(1976), The Conversation (1974), The

Pianist (2002), Sacco and Vanzetti

(1971) and The Battle of Algiers

(1965) are considered as prominent

examples of political cinema in the

history of filmmaking.

This definition does not include all

the films which center on "the

political". In other words, this

definition of the political cinema

inevitably excludes most of the films

which have obvious political

significance and implication but do

not necessarily engage with particular

political figures and events. Mike

Wayne starts his book Political Film:

the Dialectics of Third Cinema (2001:

1) by saying “All films are political,

but films are not all political in the

same way”. The films which he

chooses as “political film” have

touched on “unequal access to and

distribution of material and cultural

resources, and the hierarchies of

legitimacy and status accorded to

those differentials” in one way or the

other (ibid).

Some critics believe that political

cinema cannot be confined to films

which revolve around certain political

people and events. From this

viewpoint, films that deal with social

and political issues, either directly or

indirectly can be included in the

political genre. This definition

broadens the scope of political cinema

and, by making it more flexible,

Alavipour. S.M.. Intl. J. Humanities (2014) Vol. 21(1)

145

justifies the inclusion of a broader

range of films. It also opens the way

for author to decide what categories

can be included in this framework,

and what political cinema is (Sadr:

2006). As a result, we can claim that

political cinema might include films

that are concerned with presenting

the favorable social order and good

political order based normative

concepts. These concepts can include

categories such as “justice”,

“freedom”, “right”, “friendship”, and

so forth. Films which rely on one or

two normative categories to present

the “possibility” of favorable social

life are among those films which

possess the implications and

significance of political cinema.

In its narrow definition political

cinema includes films which do not

conceal their political position;

however, there is a broader

definition of this cinematic genre

which is noteworthy.1

For instance, as Falzon has

pointed out (2002: 134), by admiring

individual undertaking and creating

individual heroes who embark on

bringing social changes in individual

brave attempts, Hollywood cinema is

in fact adopting and promoting liberal

political thought. Likewise, in some

films like those of the prominent

Russian filmmaker, Sergei Eisenstein,

there is a propagandist admiration of

communist revolution in Russia and

the future of the socialist ideal. The

same thing is true about other

countries’ cinemas.

1. In Wikipedia it is pointed out that films that areapparently “apolitical”, and are intended to amusethe audience, have a political function, too(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Cinema).This is quite apparent in the film industries ofautocratic systems like Nazi Germany and theformer Soviet Union. Even in democratic countries,as it can be seen in Hollywood, this medium has animportant political function.


146

In his two-volume book about

cinema Gilles Deleuze divides

political cinema into two trends:

classical political cinema and modern

political cinema. In his opinion Alain

Resnais and Jean-Marie Straub are

“the greatest filmmakers of political

cinema in modern political cinema”

and Eisenstein, with movies, like Ivan

the Terrible, represents classical

political cinema. He believes that the

characteristic that makes the works of

Resnais and Straub modern political

films is that “they know how to show

the people are what is missing, what is

not there” (Deleuze, 1989: 215).

Nevertheless there is an increasing

consciousness in classical political

cinema which “means that people

already has a virtual existence in

process of being actualized… there is

a unanimity which calls the different

peoples into the same melting-pot

from which the future emerges”

(ibid: 216). It is also a characteristic

of western cinema which, as a result

of secret mechanisms of power and

majority rule system, has rarely been

the focus of attention (ibid: 217).

Deleuze believes that the issue of

modern political cinema is also the

issue of the Third World cinema. In

his idea the problem that the Third

World filmmakers encounter is that

“hey find themselves “before an

illiterate public, swamped by the

American, Egyptian and Indian

serials and karate films”, and they

have to “extract from it the elements

of a people who are still missing”.

He states:

Sometimes the minority film-maker

finds himself in the impasse described

by Kafka: the impossibility of not

‘writing’, the impossibility of writing

in the dominant language, the

impossibility of writing differently

(ibid).

The filmmakers in the Third

World have to get involved in


147

something that is completely

different from what is the issue in

the classical political cinema: not

referring to people, who are assumed

to be present there in advance, but

participating in the creation of a

nation (ibid).

This is not the only difference

between classical political cinema

and modern political cinema, to

Deleuze’s eyes. There is another big

difference which has to do with the

relation between the political and the

private, and the division between

them. As he puts it:

… classical cinema constantly

maintained this boundary which

marked the correlation of the

political and the private, and …

through intermediary of an

awareness, passage from one social

force to another, from one political

position to another… This is no

longer the case in modern political

cinema, where no boundary survives

to provide a minimum distance or

evolution: the private affair merges

with the social -or political-

immediate (ibid: 218).

This issue will be more noticeable

if we examine the relationship

between political thought, as a

normative knowledge, and cinema.

Political thought is a kind of

normative episteme which

contemplates about good life and

favorable socio- political order. This

normative model is a kind of story for

presenting human life in which the

scenes and roles are determined

(Sprigens, 1976:127). Political

thought, or as Plamenatz calls it,

“the philosophy of life” (Plamenatz

1963:14), is a kind of philosophy

which is closely related to political

life, that is, a philosophical life and

human life (Strauss, 1973:2). It aims

at projecting episteme on the

political issue, instead of casting

doubt on them. Once again the


148

purpose is to achieve favorable order

in society and establishing a good

political system (ibid).

Iranian Political Cinema

Iranian cinema is not different, Iranian

films either directly deal with political

currents and events or have their own

special political implications in a

different way. As a film critic, Hamid

Reza Sadr rejects the idea that

political cinema is confined to the

narrow definition provided above,

and states that:

“For example, Croesus” Treasure

is famous Iranian commercial film.

In this film the audience can see the

political and social conditions of Iran

in the 40s 1960s, like the money

which is injected into the economy

and those who become millionaires.

The way the hero of the film insults

the rich, matches the social and

political conditions of that time. So

you cannot disregard this film. In the

1960s children were the main

characters of films, which show the

social and political aspects of Iranian

society. What I mean is that a film

does not have to be political on its

surface, as Costa-Gavras’ Z, Gillo

Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers or

Emir Kusturica’s Underground; a

commercial film can also have

political aspects1.”

Based on the same argument Sadr

names his book on the history of

Iranian cinema The History of the

Iranian Political Cinema (2006).

Basically he does not see “politics”

only as handling the affairs of a

country, looking after foreign and

domestic affairs, improving the

people’s affairs or punishing the

wrong-doers”. For him “politics is

everyday life, it is every Iranian

film” (Sadr, 2006:15). Throughout

his book he regards cinema as a part

of the identification trend in Iran−

1. Quoted from an interview with Pourya Didar, at:http://www.cinemaema.com/NewsArticle5680.html


149

Deleuze calls it “the creation of a

nation”. Sadr looks for a socio-

political problem, intermingled with

every Iranian’s life, in the

background of every film: films that

signify a socio-political condition or

situation, even if they deal with the

seemingly personal and private

relations. Adopting such an approach

to cinema opens up a new horizon

which will reveal a world of the

unknown to author’s thought.

It should be noted that by

generalizing the meaning of politics,

Sadr includes all the issues related to

society in the definition of political

cinema and pays no heed to the inner

stratifications of politics. However,

examining cinema with regard to

different aspects of politics offers us

different perspectives. As mentioned

earlier in the introduction, the author

aims to examine political potentials

of Abbas Kiarostami’s cinema by

focusing on ”political thought” as a

normative knowledge that attempts

to present good political order to

society; in addition, it will be

analyzed the political implications of

Kiarostami’s cinema.

Kiarostami and Normative Cinema

Iranian cinema, as a prominent

cinema in the world, has dealt with

political themes in different ways. In

the history of Iranian cinema there are

a number of films, such as The Cow

(Gav), Deers (Gavazn-ha), Caesar

(Gheisar), Downpour (Ragbar) etc.,

which, in the cinematic period leading

to the Islamic Revolution have dealt

with issues of “power”, “law”,

“freedom” and “justice”. However, it

was not the mainstream of Iranian

cinema then, and the popular cultural

industry was predominant in the

artistic atmosphere. With the outbreak

of the revolution, a generation of

filmmakers who were primarily

concerned with good socio-political


150

order and narrating this order in their

own particular ways entered the

scene (for a detailed account see:

Sadr: 2006: 130-166). Kiarostami,

who began his career as a director

just before the 1979 revolution, but

flourished in the post-revolutionary

cinematic environment, is a part of

this generation.

One of the members of this

"generation" was Kiarostami.

Although Kiarostami himself avoids

any direct engagement with the

political, he does in his films actually

get involved in politics with a

normative standpoint, and therefore

deems his own cinema to in a certain

way be political (see Sadr, 2006: 307).

Where Is the Friend’s Home? (1987),

Close-Up (1990), The Homework

(1989), Life and Nothing More

(1991), Under the Olive Trees (1994),

Taste of Cherry (1997), and The Wind

Will Carry Us (1999) are among

Kiarostami’s successful films which,

by focusing on the social-human

relations in a normative form,

present the possibility of favorable

life for members of society next to

each other. In an interview in 1997

(the year he made The Taste of

Cherry) with Sight and Sound, he

never admits that his cinema is not

political and states that his films are

more political than films that are

seemingly political:

Any work of art is a political

work, but it’s not party political. It

doesn’t approve one party and attack

another, and doesn’t support one

system over another. Our

understanding of ‘political cinema’

is that it should always support one

specific political ideology. I think if

you look at my films from this point

of view, they are definitely not

political … I think that those films

which appear non-political, are more

political than films known

specifically as ‘political’ films


151

(Quoted in Sadr, 2006: 236-7).

As Dabashi states, Kiarostami’s

cinema, either consciously or

unconsciously, delves into

fundamental assumptions that form

the Iranian subject and consequently

get engaged in “re-subjecting” it

(Dabashi, 2001: 62-3).

A close examination of

Kiarostami’s films provides new

insights which are of great importance

in political cinema. Analyzing these

subjects can reveal the political

implication of Kiarostami’s cinema.

Metaphysics of Violence

Many thinkers and social critics have

reflected on violence as the means

for suppression and political

hegemony. This domination includes

both the control, manipulation of

nature, and domination over nature

of humanity (Durst, 1998: 94-5).

This finally leads to the negation of

human freedom (ibid: 106-9), and

one might find pedagogical system

as the main source of cultivating it in

the social interactions. By adopting a

phenomenological approach to

different aspects of the educational

structure of the society (both in

family and the school institution),

Kiarostami intends to present a

metaphysical and a cultural image,

or in other words “a precultural

alternative to reality” (Dabashi,

2001: 63). Through this Kiarostami

prepares the way for questioning the

human subject and offering an

alternative subject.

In Where Is the Friend’s Home?

(1987), the young boy, Ahmad

Ahmadpour, is neither rebellious

nor submissive, but acts in a peculiar

way when in a situation encounters

a human problem. He considers

himself responsible for finding a

way to give his classmate’s notebook

to him, otherwise he would be

punished for what is not his fault.


152

The Problem is simple and not

metaphysical at all, but as Dabashi

(2001: 63-4) puts it:

Ahmad [Ahmadpour] is different

in the strongest sense of the term. …

from his teacher and his petty-

dictatorial mandates and rules, from

his mother and her numbing

insistence for him to do his work,

from his grandfather and his idiotic

conceptions of etiquette and

propriety. … Ahmad is the Adam of

an Eden yet to be created, and even

if it is never created Ahmad is

already there.

Discipline and domination are

presented more prominently in two

other films by Kiarostami: Avaliha

(1984) and The Homework (1989).

By presenting a group of students

who are summoned by the principal

because of indiscipline and ignoring

order at school, Kiarostami portrays

a satiric violent image of the system

of domination in Iranian educational

system. At first the students deny

any misbehavior, but when they face

the threats and pressure by the

principal, they admit their

misbehavior and confess to it.

In a different way The Homework

depicts these relations of

domination. The film which is made

like a documentary rejects purposely

in questioning or supporting the

educational system. In answering the

question of a pedestrian about the

subject of the film, Kiarostami

simply answers that he himself does

not know whether the film will have

a story or not; Kiarostami sees

himself as the narrator of the events

which are related to doing school

assignments. Recurrent pictures of

the cameraman and the camera

which is recording Kiarostami’s

interview with students, indicates

that Kiarostami tries to evade the

responsibility of presenting any self-

made pictures of reality: it is the


153

camera which is taking pictures of

Kiarostami himself.

Different students, who are

interviewed by Kiarostami, depict

social characters that cite their social

relation with the outside world as the

reason for not doing their

assignment; they accept the imposed

system of domination and consider it

legitimate. For instance, the child

who blames the mischief of his

younger brother as the reason for not

doing his homework, the student

who lives in his aunt’s home because

his father is fighting in the Iranian-

Iraqi war and therefore he cannot do

his schoolwork well, the students

who claim to have more interest in

school assignment, even more than

television cartoons, as well as the

way they regard punishments by

their parents and their teachers,

demonstrate there is a problem with

the way school teaches students to

assume responsibility in their life.

This satirical, and at the same time

disturbing, picture becomes more

revealing in Kiarostami’s interview

with Majid; Majid depends on a

supporter to be able to speak.

Molayi, who Majid chooses as his

supporter, shows no sign of care or

support for him, while Majid burst

into tears and is lost for words

whenever Molayi is absent. Molayi

states Majid’s problem is the result

of the tough environment they have

experienced in the past. Because of

the punishments at school, Majid is

afraid of being punished and is

always terrified.

The students who are interviewed

generally have no conception of

“encouragement,” but they have a

common conception of

“punishment:” For them punishment

means “being beaten” usually by a

belt. This seems not only acceptable

but also rightful to them. Only one

of them opposes punishment, but he


154

quickly changes his mind:

Kiarostami: is he doing the right

thing [when he punishes you]?

Student: No…who? My father?

Yes sure!

What Kiarostami narrates in The

Homework (1989) is not merely a

depiction of violence in Iranian

educational system. He aims to, as

Dabashi has put it (2001: 65),

“uncover narratively the metaphysics

of violence as normatively

transubstantiated into matters of

ethics, morality, responsibility, and

literacy”. Jan Wright (2000: 161)

presents a similar account of

normalizing and disciplining female

students in physical education

classes at Australian schools. As she

points out in her analysis, in physical

education classes:

The open space of the gym or

field provides the teacher with the

opportunity to constantly monitor

the students’ behavior. The very

teacher-directed approach of most

physical education lessons, marked

by the dominance of commands, also

indicates the regulatory potential of

physical education: teachers

determine where the students will

move, what they will do and how

they will do it. While not all students

concur, and many find subtle ways

of resisting and engaging in their

own forms of regulation and

normalization, the structure,

organizing and typical interaction

patterns of traditional physical

education lessons lend themselves to

the constant enactment of these

techniques of power on the part of

the teacher.

Kiarostami tries to present this

imposed power on students. In the

picture he presents in the morning

ceremonies or Fatemiya ceremonies,

in spite of teachers’ authoritative

presence, students keep on behaving

mischievously. Here both the


155

controlling system of disciplinary

violence and students’ playful

resistance are presented. It should be

note that exposing metaphysics of

violence can culminate in an

alternative metaphysics; but

Kiarostami disregards any kind of

metaphysics and opens the door to

an alternative condition. An

alternative way that point out is of

the parent of one of the students who

is attending the school in the film,

while he is enrolling his child for the

next school year.

This person who has visited many

countries in the world, unlike other

parents who are generally illiterate

or from lower classes of society,

opposes giving students a lot of

homework and suggests that the

students “resist” it. This scene is the

only part in which Kiarostami does

not lead the interview as the

interviewer. In fact, this man

participates in the conversation and

expresses his ideas without being

asked to. In this scene Kiarostami

just “listens” to the man, which

indicates his tacit agreement with the

man’s ideas. This is the idea of

“resistance,” which can be traced in

other films by Kiarostami.

Resistance

Resistance is regarded as a norm in

Kiarostami’s films. But unlike what

is defined as open struggle or

rebellion against the reality, he

believes that resistance is a kind of

disregard for the dominant and an

attempt to offer and establish

favorable alternative situation: a

situation that is in agreement with

Dabashi’s “resubjection”.

Resistance is given a high status

in political thought. “Ethics of

resistance” is a norm that Michel

Foucault suggests for the good order

of society and it revolves around

rejecting the widespread definition


156

of human as a modern subject and

offering new forms of subjectivity.

According to Foucault (1983: 216):

Maybe the target nowadays is not

to discover what we are, but to refuse

what we are. …The conclusion would

be that the political, ethical, social,

philosophical problem of our days is

not to try to liberate the individual

form of the state, and from the

state’s institutions, but to liberate us

both from the state and from the type

of individualization which is linked

to the state. We have to promote new

forms of subjectivity through the

refusal of this kind of individuality

which has been imposed on us for

several centuries.

Therefore the ethics of resistance

is an obligation “to imagine and to

build up what we could be to get rid

of … [a] kind of political ‘double

blind’, which is the simultaneous

individualization and totalization of

modern power structure” (Ibid: 215).

Kiarostami’s Taste of Cherry,

Under the Olive Trees and Where Is

the Friend’s Home? are among the

films which reflect “ethics of

resistance.” Kiarostami wrote the

screen play for Jafar Panahi’s The

White Balloon, which can be

included in this category. In this film

we see a little girl who is happily

heading out to buy a red fish for

Haftsin, but she loses the money out

of carelessness. She makes a great

attempt to find the money and asks

all the passersby for help and finally

finds it. Here in the film the money

is her lost identity which is

eventually regained through

determination, innocence and

people’s empathy and cooperation

(Sadr, 2006:230); in the course of

regaining identity there is no need to

turn to grand metaphysical

narratives.

Taste of Cherry and Under the

Olive Trees present the ethics of


157

resistance in some ways. In Taste of

Cherry a man has made up his mind

to commit suicide and is trying to

find someone who would bury him

after his death. No reason for his

decision is given and the events of

the story do not encourage the

audience to judge his decision. So,

mere passivity, or disagreement with

this action (like the villager who

runs away) or advice based on grand

narratives (like the clergyman who

turns to verses for Quran and Hadith

to discourage him from killing

himself) are useless. What makes him

change his mind is the account of a

man who sees the “deliciousness” of

a “cherry” a good reason for

continuing life. At first this man does

not oppose his decision and even

promises to help him with that; but

by disregarding the metaphysical

grandness of the act (taking one’s

own life), this man discredits it.

Under the Olive Trees is the story

of young man who disregards social

classes and proposes marriage to a

girl whose mother, father and even

grandmother disagree with their

marriage. He simplistically questions

the social hierarchy and classification.

He believes that the literate should

marry the illiterate, the rich should

marry the poor and those who have a

house should marry those who don’t

“because if couples who both have

houses marry each other, they will

have two houses! What should they

do with two houses? Should they put

their heads in one house and stretch

their feet into the other one? This

wouldn’t be right.” He even suggests

that the death of the girl’s parents in

the 1990 earthquake in Roudbar was

the result of their rejection of his

marriage proposal explaining, “If

they had said yes, they might have

not suffered this fate; this earthquake

was God’s punishment!” He talks


158

directly to the girl (contrary to the

accepted and dominant norms of

society) and she accepts his proposal

making for a happy ending.

The use of ethics of resistance is

most prominent in Kiarostami’s

Where is the Friend’s Home?

Ahmad Ahmadpour, who throughout

the film tries to the find his friend’s

house, neither disobeys his mother

nor rebels against her. He simply

tells the “truth” to his mother, asks

for her help and wants her sympathy,

but when he finds it useless, he takes

action on his own, which makes his

grandfather consider “beating”

children a constant necessity. He

meets many people while he is

searching for his friend’s house, but

never forgets his moral duty, that is

giving the notebook to his friend.

Contrary to what Manouchehr Yari

believes (2001 [1380]: 61), none of

Ahmad’s meetings can be omitted

from the film without dping some

harm to the story, because each

encounter is essential in

strengthening “ethics of resistance in

Ahmad Ahmadpour. Without having

dinner, Ahmadpour stays up late to

do his friend’s homework, and by

putting a flower inside the notebook,

he shows us the alternative way of a

decent life; a way that passes

through the normative path of

“friendship.”

Friendship, Ethics of Care, Love

Kiarostami’s trio “Kooker” or

“Rostamabad” includes three films

which are either filmed in

Rostamabad, a far-off village in the

north of Iran, or are concerned with

this village. This trio includes, Where

is the Friend’s Home? (1987), Life

and Nothing More (1991) and Under

the Olive Trees (1994). These movies

have been acclaimed by critics in

international film festivals and have

played a great role in familiarizing


159

the world with Iranian cinema.

“Friendship” is a fundamental

norm which Kiarostami tries to

present and promote in his films. This

norm has been regarded since the

classical period as “the greatest good

of states and the preservative of them

against revolutions (Aristotle, 1885:

1262b). Eric Fromm has also

considered Love as what can be

constitutive for a "Sane Society":

Love is possible only if two

persons communicate with each

other from the center of their

existence, hence if each one of them

experiences himself from the center

of his existence. Only in this "central

experience" is human reality, only

here is aliveness, only here is the

basis for love. Love, experienced

thus, is a constant challenge; it is not

a resting place, but a moving,

growing, working together (Fromm,

1957: 80).

This notion of love has been the

center of Kiarostami’s socio-political

vision. In his interview with

Guardian he talks about his concern

with establishing friendships among

characters in his film:

I greet my neighbors every

morning. This is what I want to

portray in my films: love and

friendship among people… by

making films I aim to create

sympathy among people who have

nothing in common. This is my real

definition of art. Art’s only mission

is to make people closer to each

other.

He adopts the same approach in

Life and Nothing More. In this film

the members of the crew that made

Where is the Friend’s Home? Are

looking for Ahmad Ahmadpour, the

young actor of Where is the Friend’s

Home? Ahmad’s village has been

devastated by the after the severe

1990 earthquake in the north of Iran.

Although the extensive damage


160

caused by the earthquake has

brought about a chaotic situation, the

group does not abandon their attempt

to learn what has happened to

Ahmadpour. In other words, concern

for the Other continues to exist and

this provide hopes, or in the hero of

the film’s words, “at least this house is

sound, too; this is also a clarifying.”

Search for hidden beauty after the

earthquake paints a different picture in

Kiarostami’s mind, a picture that is

integrated into the film life and

nothing more. Encountering and

talking to someone who is going to

buy a toilet seat, meeting the man who

is setting up a television antenna by

the road to watch the World Cup

football games, which are at a crucial

stage, and most interestingly, talking

to a young man who in spite of losing

may of his family, married his fiancé

and started a new life one day after the

earthquake, reveals the hidden aspect

of the disaster, which is full of life

and promises happiness and a rosy

future.

In Under the Olive Trees,

Kiarostami’s trio comes to maturity

and introduces “love” as a legitimate

basis on which society can be

founded. The theme of this film is

the filming of a scene from Life and

Nothing More, where a character of

the film is talking to the young man

who has married just one day after

the earthquake. What had been

shown as real in the previous film

has now become a cinematic story

which is depicted by the actors, a

satire that crosses the boundaries

between film and reality. Therefore,

as the film can present an unreal

picture of reality, it can also present

a realistic picture of fiction. Hussein,

an illiterate young man from the

lower class who has worked since he

was 11 to make a living, wants to

marry Tahereh who is literate and

from the upper class. He is informed


161

about her parents’ disagreement with

the marriage before the earthquake.

The earthquake changes the situation

completely. Now people are all

equal in “poverty” and the society

needs to be reconstructed. Unlike the

common trend of society in which

the relationships are defined based

on class relations, the society can be

founded on a completely different

basis. The norm Kiarostami

introduces is “love”, a fundamental

norm on which the new society can

be established. A basis which solely

relies on the “human being”,

excluding embellishments such as

literacy, money and house that do

not affect it. Eventually Hussein

finds a way to talk to Tahereh about

“the center of their existence”, the

only center which according to Erich

Fromm can provide the basis for

founding a healthy society based on

love.

Conclusion

Political cinema can be a normative

episteme which offers good life and

favorable political order; however, it

does not mean that it is isolated or

disconnected from other human

episteme in presenting it. Each

episteme can carry normative

implications, either intentionally or

unintentionally and therefore can

contribute to political philosophy on

its own course. Cinema, Abbas

Kiarostami’s cinema in our case, is

noted as one of the favorable

positions for expressing favorable

political norms differently.

However, it is not claimed that

Kiarostami’s cinema is a kind of

political philosophy. We need to

note that this cinema presents

various political implications and

hence not only is it a political

cinema, but also it can be regarded

as a normative political cinema.


162

As an artist who is aware of

tangible everyday issues of human

life and avoids getting involved with

superficial elements, Kiarostami

deals with the deeper layers of socio-

political life. He scrutinizes different

layers of distribution of power in

society, and through criticizing the

‘metaphysics of violence” in the

educational system, and

consequently the social system of

Iran, he encourages a kind of

“resistance” which can manifest

itself in the form of childish

naughtiness. This resistance can

create a different situation, and it can

promise a society with different

bases and principles. This different

situation is founded on norms like

“friendship”, “concern for the other”

and “love”, which only through their

realization we can expect to live in a

healthy society, A society which

revolves around the “admiration of

life”, although it continuously faces

the “anxiety of death”, as the most

certain event in life. This life is

possible not through domination

over others but through friendship

and love.

References

Latin Sources:

[1] Aristotle, (1885), Politics, Trans. By B.

Jwett, Oxford, Oxford University Press:

London.

[2] Dabashi, Hamid, (2001), Close Up:

Iranian Cinema, Past, Present and

Future, London & New York: Verso

Publication.

[3] Deleuze, Gilles (1989), Cinema 2,

Translated into English By Hugh

Tomlinson and Robert Galeta,

Minneapolis, University of Minnesota

Press.

[4] Durst, David C. (1998). Heidegger on

the problem of metaphysics and

violence. Heidegger studies, 14, S. 93-

110.

[5] Falzon, Christopher (2002), Philosophy

Goes To The Movies: An introduction to

philosophy, London and New York:

Routledge.


163

[6] Foucault, Michel (1983), The Subject

and Power, in: Michel Foucault:

Beyond Structuralism and

Hermeneutics (2nd Ed.), by: H. Dreyfus

and P. Rabinow, pp. 208-229, Chicago,

University of Chicago Press.

[7] Fromm, Erich (1957), The Art of

Loving, London, George Allen &

Unwin.

[8] Plamenatz, John (1963), Man and

Society, London: Longman.

[9] Sprigens, Thomas (1976),

Understanding Political Theory, New

York: St. Martin Press.

[10] Strauss, Leo (1973), What Is Political

Philosophy, New York: The Free press.

[11] Wayne, Mike (2001), Political Film:

The Dialectics of Third Cinema,

London: Pluto Press.

[12] Wright, Jan (2000), Disciplining the

Body: Power, Knowledge, and

Subjectivity in a Physical Education, in:

Culture & Text: Discourse and

Methodology in Social Research and

Cultural Studies, ed. By: C. Poynton and

A. Lee, pp. 152-170, Sydney, Allen &

Unwin.

Persian Sources:

[13] Yari, M. (2001 [1380]). Construction

of Iranian Story-telling and Allegories

and their Influence on Kiarostami’s

Cinema, in: Ham-Konesh-e Zaban Va

Honar (Language and art interaction).

Tehran: Sooreh Mehr Press.


164

هاي سیاسی سینماي عباس کیارستمیداللت

1پورسیدمحسن علوي

26/12/92تاریخ پذیرش:15/4/91تاریخ دریافت:

واقعه، -دانند که به یکی از امور مشخصا سیاسی معموال سینماي سیاسی را سینمایی می

رسد این تعریف نه جامع و نه مانع نظر میبهبپردازد. در حالی که -زندگینامه، و یا فرایند سیاسی

اي سیاسی دارند اما ضرورتا مسئله-هاي هنجاريهایی که سویهبر فیلماست و در شمولیت

رو الزم است با بازاندیشی در این تعریف، کنند ناتوان است. از اینسیاسی را روایت نمی

رد. مقاله حاضر با هدف انجام چنین هاي سینماي سیاسی هنجاري را شناسایی و معرفی کمولفه

کاري، به کاوش در وجوه هنجاري سیاسی آثار عباس کیارستمی سینماگر مشهور ایرانی

پردازد.می

: اندیشه هنجاري، سینماي سیاسی، دوستی، مقاومت، متافیزیک خشونتکلیديواژگان

.استادیار پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی تهران، ایران. ١

Intl. J. Humanities (2014) Vol. 21 (1): (143-164)

143

Political Implications of Abbas Kiarostami’s Cinema

Seyedmohsen Alavipour1

Received: 5/7/2012 Accepted: 17/3/2014

Abstract

Political Cinema is defined as a "political event", a "biography", or

"process". Such a definition is, however, not inclusive enough to cover

the films which focus on the normative aspects of politics without

necessarily narrating a special political issue. By reviewing Abbas

Kiarostami’s films, this article attempts to revise the definition of

political cinema and propose the notion of normative political cinema.

Keywords: Normative Thought; Political Cinema; Friendship;

Resistance; Metaphysics of Violence.

1. Assistant Professor at Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS), Tehran, [email protected]


144

Introduction

Political cinema is supposed to deal

with or narrate the whole or part of a

politician’s life. Therefore, films that

are categorized under the genre of

political cinema are the ones which

revolve around secret political

relations, collusion that culminate in a

particular event, or even the rise and

fall of a politician. From this

perspective films such as: A Man for

All Seasons (1966), JFK (1991),

Nixon (1995), All the President’s Men

(1976), The Conversation (1974), The

Pianist (2002), Sacco and Vanzetti

(1971) and The Battle of Algiers

(1965) are considered as prominent

examples of political cinema in the

history of filmmaking.

This definition does not include all

the films which center on "the

political". In other words, this

definition of the political cinema

inevitably excludes most of the films

which have obvious political

significance and implication but do

not necessarily engage with particular

political figures and events. Mike

Wayne starts his book Political Film:

the Dialectics of Third Cinema (2001:

1) by saying “All films are political,

but films are not all political in the

same way”. The films which he

chooses as “political film” have

touched on “unequal access to and

distribution of material and cultural

resources, and the hierarchies of

legitimacy and status accorded to

those differentials” in one way or the

other (ibid).

Some critics believe that political

cinema cannot be confined to films

which revolve around certain political

people and events. From this

viewpoint, films that deal with social

and political issues, either directly or

indirectly can be included in the

political genre. This definition

broadens the scope of political cinema

and, by making it more flexible,


145

justifies the inclusion of a broader

range of films. It also opens the way

for author to decide what categories

can be included in this framework,

and what political cinema is (Sadr:

2006). As a result, we can claim that

political cinema might include films

that are concerned with presenting

the favorable social order and good

political order based normative

concepts. These concepts can include

categories such as “justice”,

“freedom”, “right”, “friendship”, and

so forth. Films which rely on one or

two normative categories to present

the “possibility” of favorable social

life are among those films which

possess the implications and

significance of political cinema.

In its narrow definition political

cinema includes films which do not

conceal their political position;

however, there is a broader

definition of this cinematic genre

which is noteworthy.1

For instance, as Falzon has

pointed out (2002: 134), by admiring

individual undertaking and creating

individual heroes who embark on

bringing social changes in individual

brave attempts, Hollywood cinema is

in fact adopting and promoting liberal

political thought. Likewise, in some

films like those of the prominent

Russian filmmaker, Sergei Eisenstein,

there is a propagandist admiration of

communist revolution in Russia and

the future of the socialist ideal. The

same thing is true about other

countries’ cinemas.

1. In Wikipedia it is pointed out that films that areapparently “apolitical”, and are intended to amusethe audience, have a political function, too(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Cinema).This is quite apparent in the film industries ofautocratic systems like Nazi Germany and theformer Soviet Union. Even in democratic countries,as it can be seen in Hollywood, this medium has animportant political function.